Well, I just got off the phone with Miyamoto and he just wanted me to relay a message to you
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAAAAAAA"
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I WANT: Open world Zelda; core items from start; challenging, with skippable tutorial
- Thread starter Neiteio
- Start date
Well, I just got off the phone with Miyamoto and he just wanted me to relay a message to you
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAAAAAAA"
That's because of motion controls.
Nintendo focused too much on the execution of motion controls and less in the game itself.
They used the normal wiimote at first they later abandoned it in favor of motion+ etc.
You're right that such a game would need a lot of work. But it's about time the series becomes ambitious again. Zelda games were always ambitious and there was always a vision for something big behind them. In my opinion, this is completely lost in recent Zelda games.
I haven't played Darksiders 2 yet, but I guess I should
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
I wouldn't mind if Monolith were to design the overworld, the way it's traversed or the menu system in a Zelda game. No siree. I would not mind that at all. What they did in Xenoblade was amazing. They just cut out all the annoying crap that gets between the player and their fun and they did it with one simple solution - they just decided to not include the unfun bits.
Take quick travel for instance. Xenoblade removed the frustration and tedium that comes from backtracking through areas you'd already been to go exploring by simply letting you teleport close to your destination and it let's you do it at any time from the menu. Think you missed a cave waaaay back in the first area and want to check it out, but don't want to spend ten minutes crossing the game world to do it? In Xenoblade you do that no worries. In modern Zelda games, you just can't be bothered because, let's be honest, it could just be nothing and getting there to find out is a gigantic pain in the arse.
Even if quick travel in a Zelda game is dressed up like it was in MM, it results in an amazingly lean game. The fact that you couldn't just teleport between bird statues in the same province in SS, but had to go to the sky, then turn around on your loftwing, then dive back down the pillar of light you came from so you could choose where to land from a menu was such bullshit. Just let me teleport already! If I wanted to go exploring a place I'd already been, I'd explore it from the waypoint you let me teleport from.
I just think Zelda (and Pokemon, for that matter) have just got too much fat that doesn't need to be there and it's a result of nobody paying attention to the fact that the interface can be frustrating.
Take the interface of the potion shop in SS for instance - in order to get an upgraded potion, you have to stand in front of a particular pot, then talk to the shop keeper, she'll talk and delay you for five seconds, you say yes and you get your potion. Next, you walk to her husband, who'll have a spiel of his own, ask for some bugs and infuse your potion, then give you a closing spiel before giving you your potion and letting you go.
The whole process takes about two minutes, which is about 100 seconds longer than it needs to be and you're going to do this dozens of times throughout the course of the game, which is at least a half hour wasted watching the same animation and reading the same scrolling text over and over. Why couldn't the process have been 1) talk to potion shop owner 2) choose your upgraded potion from a menu and 3) fork over your cash and bugs at the same time and be done?
Zelda team still needs to do the dungeons though, given that TP, ST and SS had these AMAZING dungeon designs.
TL;DR - Make the decision making process in Zelda games snappy. Add quick travel. That is all.
Take quick travel for instance. Xenoblade removed the frustration and tedium that comes from backtracking through areas you'd already been to go exploring by simply letting you teleport close to your destination and it let's you do it at any time from the menu. Think you missed a cave waaaay back in the first area and want to check it out, but don't want to spend ten minutes crossing the game world to do it? In Xenoblade you do that no worries. In modern Zelda games, you just can't be bothered because, let's be honest, it could just be nothing and getting there to find out is a gigantic pain in the arse.
Even if quick travel in a Zelda game is dressed up like it was in MM, it results in an amazingly lean game. The fact that you couldn't just teleport between bird statues in the same province in SS, but had to go to the sky, then turn around on your loftwing, then dive back down the pillar of light you came from so you could choose where to land from a menu was such bullshit. Just let me teleport already! If I wanted to go exploring a place I'd already been, I'd explore it from the waypoint you let me teleport from.
I just think Zelda (and Pokemon, for that matter) have just got too much fat that doesn't need to be there and it's a result of nobody paying attention to the fact that the interface can be frustrating.
Take the interface of the potion shop in SS for instance - in order to get an upgraded potion, you have to stand in front of a particular pot, then talk to the shop keeper, she'll talk and delay you for five seconds, you say yes and you get your potion. Next, you walk to her husband, who'll have a spiel of his own, ask for some bugs and infuse your potion, then give you a closing spiel before giving you your potion and letting you go.
The whole process takes about two minutes, which is about 100 seconds longer than it needs to be and you're going to do this dozens of times throughout the course of the game, which is at least a half hour wasted watching the same animation and reading the same scrolling text over and over. Why couldn't the process have been 1) talk to potion shop owner 2) choose your upgraded potion from a menu and 3) fork over your cash and bugs at the same time and be done?
Zelda team still needs to do the dungeons though, given that TP, ST and SS had these AMAZING dungeon designs.
TL;DR - Make the decision making process in Zelda games snappy. Add quick travel. That is all.
radioheadrule83
Banned
If they ever go open world I hope they fill it and make it interesting, traversing skyrim and discovering locations for the first time, without the ability to warp there yet was torturous to play and to watch... A colossal waste of time.
They need to make a 3d hyrule as tight and charming as link to the past's. They haven't come close yet.
They need to make a 3d hyrule as tight and charming as link to the past's. They haven't come close yet.
IrishNinja
Member
as usual, viciouskillersquirrel has some good points. we always talk about how annoying rediscovering items was, but those are great examples too.
i'm hopeful for DS2, but this analogy really needs to cease.
it's like that weird "MAKE THE NEXT SOULS GAME A ZELDA" shit we had for a while here earlier this gen...highlight the gaming aspects you think got it right, but don't pretend they're the same experiences on the same tier here.
i'm hopeful for DS2, but this analogy really needs to cease.
it's like that weird "MAKE THE NEXT SOULS GAME A ZELDA" shit we had for a while here earlier this gen...highlight the gaming aspects you think got it right, but don't pretend they're the same experiences on the same tier here.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
My bad you are right I enjoyed the first DS more than any of the 3d zeldas. Sorry about that.
Holy Order Sol
Member
You can skip most of it in subsequent playthroughs (since most of the explanations are on signs you don't need to read/from NPC you can ignore), and at the time of release what it taught you wasn't obvious shit.
Compare with the instructor in SS that tells you how to dash jump on crates AND will give you shit for ignoring him when you're just passing by.
eXistor
Member
What the op wants sounds amazing, it's never gonna happen, but it' sounds great. It's what I've wanted Zelda to be for a long, long time; a return to the structure of Zelda 1. The overworld doesn't have to be huge, just dense. I still love the Zelda games and had an absolutely blast with Skyward Sword, but it's not an adventure game anymore, they don;t want the player to do any exploring on their own. It's the way Nintendo envisioned it or nothing.
I would love for Nintendo to take a look at what From Software has done with both King's Field and the Souls games, this is what a Zelda game needs to be structured like (Dark Souls comes closest) and the funny thing is, Zelda 1 and to a lesser extent, Zelda 2 are like that. The older, more difficult and less handholding Zelda's are amongst the better selling ones too, so why not take a little risk and go for broke? I've a feeling Zelda U is gonna be Twilight Princess 2.0 though and that would be a shame.
btw lol@people thinking Darksiders even comes close to any Zelda...well maybe ST and PH. It's an okay game, but come on, really?
I would love for Nintendo to take a look at what From Software has done with both King's Field and the Souls games, this is what a Zelda game needs to be structured like (Dark Souls comes closest) and the funny thing is, Zelda 1 and to a lesser extent, Zelda 2 are like that. The older, more difficult and less handholding Zelda's are amongst the better selling ones too, so why not take a little risk and go for broke? I've a feeling Zelda U is gonna be Twilight Princess 2.0 though and that would be a shame.
btw lol@people thinking Darksiders even comes close to any Zelda...well maybe ST and PH. It's an okay game, but come on, really?
When people say this they mean visually right? Because I'l take my gameplay filled environments over the pretty scenery of Xenoblade anytime.
Zelda isn't an action adventure game anymore? I'd love for someone to tell me what I've been playing then.
butter_stick
Banned
I just realised I haven't beat a Zelda since Twilight Princess. The DS games and SS pretty much killed any enthusiasm I had for the series. It's hard to see how things are going to change any time soon.
Twilight Princess is my favourite Zelda, in spite of it's atrocious opening, but the next game just being Ocarina 3 (or 4) would be hard to get excited about too. And I just can't see Nintendo making major changes that don't involve controller gimmicks.
Twilight Princess is my favourite Zelda, in spite of it's atrocious opening, but the next game just being Ocarina 3 (or 4) would be hard to get excited about too. And I just can't see Nintendo making major changes that don't involve controller gimmicks.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Yes I played OoT for the first time on 3ds after I already played Darksiders and I found it dull as hell. Hitting the field the first time felt cool though. I liked the exploration feel of it but everything else was so damn dated feeling. A timeless game it is not. The requirements for what people consider the best games ever NEED to be able to be picked up by anyone at any point and for them to enjoy it with out feeling limited from restrictions of it's era.
They are and they are still the blueprint for the genre.
I just want them to make a proper 3d Link to the Past. It doesn't have to copy pasta the formula but god damn give the feeling back. The closest we got was Wind Waker but that game was unfinished and it showed =/
I'm not having a problem with making games accessible in general (it's a good thing, obviously), it's just that they go too far, at least in that specific example. Like I wrote, this was in the final dungeon of the game, with many similar and/or harder puzzles existing in previous dungeons.
And instead of giving the player some time to try for himself and giving him some hint if he can't manage it, they give you two hints AND the solution beforehand. The only thing left to figure out is that you have to use the boomerang.
Most people equate adventure with exploring an open world unfortunately.
butter_stick
Banned
Ocarina felt more like LttP than Wind Waker, to me. Wind Waker's stupid sea stuff makes it feel unique, in its own "this is a bad idea" category.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Yeah the structure was similar, almost copy paste in ways, but I ment it more in the openness feel of the game. The problem I had with OoT is just that the game itself was held back by the platform and it being 3d, toss in the fact it was mega sucessful and now we are stuck with it's offspring.
The fact OoT was originally planned to follow in the roots of Zelda 2 until they changed it up saddens me even more. Imagine, we could of had smash bros link in our zelda games
The combat yes, the rest of the game eh doesn't work with zelda. It's pretty much an extreme version of what they wanted from the 3d zelda combat system to begin with.
H_Prestige
Banned
So you want Dark Souls with a Zelda skin? I'd be down for that. I don't think Nintendo would ever add online play though.
Nope. Not letting you start with all core items/abilities is a necessary key design aspect in Zelda-like and Metroidvania games.
I think people like the OP don't understand good game design.
It's the feeling of progression that is extremely motivating in games like Zelda, Metroid etc. Introducing new elements in regular intervals also keeps the experience interesting. Having all core items from the start would take all that away.
It's also very evident in the Batman (AA,AC) games. Arkham City started you with more key abilities and, subsequently, the character progression aspect felt way weaker and less interesting in that game. If in Symphony of the Night, they had allowed you to continue with fully equipped Alucard instead of stripping him of basically everything a few minutes into the game, the experience wouldn't have been nearly as satisfying as well. These games are about finding "stuff".
I think people like the OP don't understand good game design.
It's the feeling of progression that is extremely motivating in games like Zelda, Metroid etc. Introducing new elements in regular intervals also keeps the experience interesting. Having all core items from the start would take all that away.
It's also very evident in the Batman (AA,AC) games. Arkham City started you with more key abilities and, subsequently, the character progression aspect felt way weaker and less interesting in that game. If in Symphony of the Night, they had allowed you to continue with fully equipped Alucard instead of stripping him of basically everything a few minutes into the game, the experience wouldn't have been nearly as satisfying as well. These games are about finding "stuff".
H_Prestige
Banned
How does Dark Souls punish experimentation and playing without the wiki? Only thing I can think of is putting a bunch of points into resistance without knowing it's useless.
They shouldn't hold the player's hand is what I mean. After the game intro, you are never interrupted in Dark Souls. You are playing from start to finish, literally.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Wasn't the countless builds on the wiki FROM experimentation? The game lets you be creative, you just have to know what ingredients to cook with and what mixes with the stew.
Shit i have 8 different dark souls characters I've made over time. Not one plays like the other.
Oh my bad you ment like that. Then yes I fully agree. Outside some narrative and events things should be hand holds free.
butter_stick
Banned
Items don't make you feel powerful in modern Zelda. All they do is act as keys to allow access to new areas. They can find ways of doing that without the generic "gain an item each dungeon!" shit.
H_Prestige
Banned
What I meant was that you can't accidentally create a useless build that prevents you from beating the game. My first build was actually created on my own without any wiki consult. It was hella powerful. You can obviously create a whole bunch of different style characters, but they'd all be capable.
Yeah, I think after OOT and MM, the series is just too dumbed down. They're so afraid to let the player fail or do something that doesn't assure their immediate victory. I felt like TP was playing me more than I was playing TP. And SS is apparently even more dumbed down.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Oh you can, say if you were dumb enough to not use any logic and put 1 point into each stat evenly. Although the game is possible to beat naked
I agree 100% I played the shit out of dark souls on release, did I have a wiki open? Fuck no I didn't. Shit I even made a video showing how to get through that low frame rate shit zone in 2 minutes or less. Using a wiki to learn what stats do or how crafting works. Ok I'll give you a pass for that. Using it for zones bosses and items in the map. Fuck no what was the point in even playing
Well, it's not. Wiki-playing Dark Souls is meant for subsequent playthroughs. The first playthrough should be played on your own. Sure, you won't have a perfect character build, you won't discover every secret... but it's much more satisfying than playing with a guide. Playing with a guide first is just lame, you might as well just watch a let's play on yt.
The one thing that I agree with in this regard is the crafting system in Dark Souls. That should've been explained better by an NPC or so.
Progression doesn't just mean "more powerful". It's also satisfying when you can finally traverse terrain that you couldn't before etc.
I'm also talking about old Zelda mainly. I never touched Skyward Sword, I did play WW and TP but both games lost me near the end, could never be bothered to finish them. My favorites are Link's Awakening and ALTTP, of course.
TheCongressman1
Member
Exactly. Glad some others see it too.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Tutorials shouldn't be skippable, they should be invisible. Big difference. (see: Portal)
I agree with the poster who said they should incorporate Xenoblade's instant travel system. Fuck, A Link to the Past had a similar system partway through the game (the flute). Also, Zelda games need to focus less on being big and more on "feeling big" (see: Wind Waker).
I agree with the poster who said they should incorporate Xenoblade's instant travel system. Fuck, A Link to the Past had a similar system partway through the game (the flute). Also, Zelda games need to focus less on being big and more on "feeling big" (see: Wind Waker).
Every single 3D Zelda has a travel system like ALttP.
About your second point SS does exactly that, I would even argue WW IS big and doesn't just feel like it. It's also empty though.
That sounds like a great way to discourage people from leaving difficult dungeons.
Honestly, I think the open dungeon idea is just poor. The original Zelda didn't do it, and Demon's Souls and Dark Souls don't do it. There's a good reason for that; it almost always leads to a poor difficulty curve or poor design. If it's built into an open world, this becomes even more likely; nobody wants to run all the way across the map to get to the easier stuff if they stumble into something hard.
When I hear about open-world, everything-unlocked games, I think of stuff like Prince of Persia 2008, which had an awful difficulty curve and a plot forced into stasis since the player could access it in any order. Or Just Cause 2, which is full of samey objectives of identical difficulty. Or you could imagine a version of Shadow of the Colossus where the bosses could show up in any order. That's not what Zelda is or should be.
Zelda has already done quasi-open stuff, using the open world as a gating mechanism to hide tiers of dungeons. LTTP is pretty linear, but it allows some out-of-order stuff due to its overworld. OoT does similar stuff in its back half. Demon's Souls consists of 5 linear tracks, and Dark Souls forces the player to complete certain areas to unlock others. That gives the designer a better expectation of the player's strength in each area, and it gives the player a more real sense of progression; their dungeon progress allows them to reach new areas and dungeons that were inaccessible before, areas which require their new skills. Without this, the areas that players find in the overworld with their new items can only consist of things that strengthen the player's existing abilities, instead of opening new paths.
Skyward Sword's handholding was pretty infuriating, but it's not that hard a problem to fix. With a less overbearing story track and fewer forced interruptions, that game would already take a much different feel. All Zelda needs to do is put a little more trust in the player's ingenuity, and it can recapture that sense of discovery.
good but that's not what the poster was saying though
Holy Order Sol
Member
Plenty of people did just that judging by the thread we had here, you might just be in the minority and probably wouldn't have liked it back in 98 either.
Silvawuff
Member
Zelda-flavored Skyrim? Sure!
Interesting idea, OP -- but part of the charm and "formula" of Zelda is the progression of equipment (same deal with Metroid), since the only other character growth to speak of is the collection of heart containers.
Starting the game with all of the tools would a boring game make.
Interesting idea, OP -- but part of the charm and "formula" of Zelda is the progression of equipment (same deal with Metroid), since the only other character growth to speak of is the collection of heart containers.
Starting the game with all of the tools would a boring game make.
I've been saying this since Ocarina came out in 1998. Zelda should always be about freedom and exploration. This is probably the reason why the only 3D Zelda I really like is Wind Waker. I thought with Wind Waker they learned from their mistakes, but no, in the next Zelda game they went back to a bland overworld with no exploration.
Well this is the most idiotic thing I've read this morning. Why even comment on the thread if you never played the original Zelda?
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Old link from the other universe?... DEAL
IrishNinja
Member
ahaha...almost the worst opinion in this thread, but then
page 1 tried tackling the "zelda fans don't know what they want", page 3 shows why that effort failed
butter_stick
Banned
You can do that in ways that don't involve having to unlock the boomerang or the arrow. The game would be more fun if those items were fundamental to the most basic combat. Giving the player them at the start of the game, and making them necessary at all points, not just for puzzle solving, would be a much better situation.
An excellent Zelda game indeed. I think the OP would like it.
But would that be in addition to the main questline dungeons, or would the only dungeons in the game be seperate, individual adventures, featuring their own stories? That's where I don't agree with you, if it is indeed what you are saying.
Anyhow, if they were going to make a massive, open world Zelda with main quests, side quests, towns, dungeons, etc, I think they would have to make it an overhead view game, like Titan Quest -- IMO; that's the only way they could make a massive world, have tons of items, mechanics, etc. in a next gen game.
Associating the original Zelda with contemporary "open world" games is a misunderstanding of the franchise.
It's certainly true that the first game was more open in construction than the later entries and even allowed sequence breaking, but it was still organized around a set of cryptic puzzles (whistle on the map to open a passage, figure out old man's ridde-like clues, etc) and a lock-and-key set of items that open up additional passages on the map. The core of the game wasn't grinding or leveling, it was more a matter of successively discovering the carefully placed secrets of the map while keeping your eyes open for places you'll need to revisit once you have the correct items.
In subsequent games, the puzzles in the dungeons quickly developed into an even more elaborate clockwork of elements. When you enter a Zelda dungeon, you know that:
At the core of the Zelda franchise is a carefully constructed and perfectly arranged design of interlocking elements in a series of dungeons. But you cannot achieve that kind of clever structuring in an "open world" game; in fact, the basic design elements at play in Zelda are deeply antagonistic to the principles of contemporary open world games.
(While I'm at it: Link's Awakening might just be the perfect 2D Zelda, with its perfectly constructed dungeons and puzzles. That is the culmination of what the first LoZ set in motion, not "open world" grinding and wandering.)
It's certainly true that the first game was more open in construction than the later entries and even allowed sequence breaking, but it was still organized around a set of cryptic puzzles (whistle on the map to open a passage, figure out old man's ridde-like clues, etc) and a lock-and-key set of items that open up additional passages on the map. The core of the game wasn't grinding or leveling, it was more a matter of successively discovering the carefully placed secrets of the map while keeping your eyes open for places you'll need to revisit once you have the correct items.
In subsequent games, the puzzles in the dungeons quickly developed into an even more elaborate clockwork of elements. When you enter a Zelda dungeon, you know that:
- You won't be unable to proceed due to not bringing something along, because you cannot enter a dungeon if you don't have the right equipment;
- Everything you see and cannot solve will eventually be solvable once you figure out the workings of the dungeon and obtain the item; and
- The new item will be introduced to you by a series of elements in which the basic concept appears first, then a slight twist, then an extension of the idea that requires you to have a little ingenuity.
At the core of the Zelda franchise is a carefully constructed and perfectly arranged design of interlocking elements in a series of dungeons. But you cannot achieve that kind of clever structuring in an "open world" game; in fact, the basic design elements at play in Zelda are deeply antagonistic to the principles of contemporary open world games.
(While I'm at it: Link's Awakening might just be the perfect 2D Zelda, with its perfectly constructed dungeons and puzzles. That is the culmination of what the first LoZ set in motion, not "open world" grinding and wandering.)
Wuthering_Heights
Banned
RoboGeorgeForeman
Banned
ahaha...almost the worst opinion in this thread, but then
page 1 tried tackling the "zelda fans don't know what they want", page 3 shows why that effort failed
I would say without a doubt that both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are better than any 3D Zelda game to come out. While they're not without their own flaws, they have better combat, more challenging stages and bosses, don't bog the game down with long as fuck openings or tutorials, and have gotten way more replays from me than any other Zelda game I've played to date (even the first two, which are my personal favorites).
This isn't to say I want Zelda to be like the Souls games, but I would appreciate the Zelda series taking pointers from the series about the appropriate level of hand-holding one should expect from a game.
Eggplant Wizard
Member
All of these thoughts on the series sound neat. While I found Skyward Sword mildly disappointing, I don't see the series as stagnant, but I wouldn't mind seeing any of these ideas implemented in some way.
That said, I'm way more interested in seeing what's done with Zelda's 3DS efforts. It'll be the first handheld Zelda in eight years to not use touch screen controls, and it could end up being the change that the OP and others want.
That said, I'm way more interested in seeing what's done with Zelda's 3DS efforts. It'll be the first handheld Zelda in eight years to not use touch screen controls, and it could end up being the change that the OP and others want.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
But I'm not a "Zelda Fan" and I do know what I expect from these games. Don't tell me you actually think OoT is one of the best games ever even to this very day? Cause that's just silly.
At the time it was a pretty major thing with some of the stuff it did and the scope of it all but that's you know AT IT'S TIME and very few things hold up to being able last the trial of time and game mechanics evolving and giving a richer experiences.
aLttP is a wonderful example of just that.
Even though there is combat in Zelda games, Nintendo has never really made the combat something you worry about. Actually Zelda 2 (one of my favorites), had possibly the greatest action difficulty. It is something that could completely change the negative attributes some have towards the series.
But acknowledging the complacent combat system, which is one of the big changes they can make in the series, the star of Zelda games has always been the dungeon design. The dungeon design is unparallel, no game touches the 3D dungeon design that EAD pulls out on those games.
Dark Souls is such a different game and about a completely different type of experience.